We promote fair and honest political discussion from all sides of the ideological spectrum While my own opinions and my contributors tend toward a more progressive view, that's not always the case. I ask people to comment freely and openly to promote fair discourse.

The other member of this blog offers some predictions regarding Roe Vs. Wade; Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers; SCOTUS rulings that Presidential Records and testimony are confidential for national security; Abu Ghraib and Torture, Posse Comitatus; and more war in the Middle East.

Things I expect to see:

1. Bush's little office wife confirmed to SCOTUS after a fairly narrow vote, with the opposers being Repubs who didn't get the inside info

2. No immediate repeal of Roe/Wade (holding off for the 2008 Prez election as wedge)

5. A 6-3 SCOTUS ruling that effectively undoes the Posse Comitatus Act, and lets the Prez send in the troops as he pleases domestically.

6. Some strategic time before the 2006 Congress elections (June or July, maybe?) , either "We found WMD's in Syria, let's roll ! " or "Iran is interfering with our nation building in Iraq, let's roll ! ".

Links to this post:

On the subjest of prophecy, sort of, something from MyDD. this means something to me because i have been talking about the return of feudalism in conversations for half a year or more, and for the first time i find another (weirdo?) using the word -

Recoil in Horror from the Miers Nominationby Chris Bowers

Over at Is That Legal?, Eric Mullar listened in to the White House sponsored conference call on Miers. The quotes he highlights demonstrate a complete lack of support for judicial independence and concern for the Constitution. Truly sickening stuff.First, throw the Constitution out of the window. Eric quotes Sarah Taylor, the White House director of political affairs (emphasis in original):

Harriet Miers is "somebody who not only makes decisions based on what's in the Constitution but makes decisions that ... uh ... uh, she believes strongly in."Eric then notes (emphasis in original): Oh. So Justice Miers' own strong beliefs will inform her constitutional interpretation? Really? I thought that was what judges weren't supposed to do.Second, say hello to court packing and cronyism. Jay Sekulow said the following on the conference call: I'm involved in three three cases at the Court this Term, and believe me: I want Harriet Meirs up there voting on these critical cases."Oh. My. God. Eric notes: This, folks, is an outrage. The White House has lined up a lawyer with cases now pending before the United States Supreme Court to get on a White-House-sponsored conference call to tell conservatives that they should support the nominee so that she can vote in his pending cases! (...)And if Harriet Miers has an inkling that the White House is lining up Sekulow to make this particular pitch, why, I would say that's disqualifying right there.

And, for good measure, throw judicial independence out the window, because Miers is just going to do whatever Bush thinks the court should do. Richard Land of the Southern Bapist convention said the following on the call: One of the things that someone as a sixth-generation Texan that I want to add to this call and that is this: The two things that are probably ... there are two virtues that are valued as highly as any virtue can be valued in the Texas culture, and those two virtues are courage and loyalty. Courage and loyalty. And this President, he knows that Harriet Miers is also a Texan, and, with a degree of understanding that would never have to be articulated, he and she both understand that if she were to get on the Court and she were to rule in ways that were contrary to the ways that the president would want her to approach her role as a justice it would be a deep personal betrayal and would be perceived as such by both by him and by her.This goes beyond any issue of stealth nominees or qualified nominees. This is the White House openly and publicly doing away with an independent judiciary and completely ignoring the Constitution itself. This is more than just cronyism--this is anti-modern feudalism where laws are made not on any pre-existing set of documents or precedents, but instead by the personal inklings and fealty ties of a small, privileged few. The White House has said that she is going to vote on her personal beliefs. The White House has said that she will vote the way Bush wants her to vote. The White House has said that they are putting her on the court to swing some important cases that are about to come before the court. These are not things that a modern, representative democracy does. This is more than enough to demand that the Miers nomination be withdrawn. This is probably enough to demand Bush's impeachment, all by itself. Utterly grotesque. Recoil in horror indeed.

Judges :: Fri Oct 7th, 2005 at 02:42:06 PM EDT

Links to this post:

Once Miers is sworn in, what happens if Dubbyah dies (or is gone in the Rapture)? Who is his successor as the one who will give Miers her legal opinions and marching orders? Will she have to step down? Will Rove or Cheney become the viceroy? Does it pass to one of the Bush daughters by right of blood?

In any system of governance based on personal loyalty, the right of succession is of TREMENDOUS importance.